Law Officers' Advice: Disclosure

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Answer by the Lord President on 13 October (Official Report, cols. 600–01) whether it is within the discretionary powers of the Government to decide to make an exception to the convention that legal advice from the Law Officers is not publicly disclosed.

Baroness Amos: I refer the noble Lord to the Answer given by the Attorney-General in response to his Question (HL 4893). There have been a few cases in which exceptions have been made to the convention that legal advice from the Law Officers is not publicly disclosed. Exceptions are, however, only very rarely made, since otherwise this would undermine the purpose of the convention, which is to enable the Government, like everyone else, to obtain full and frank legal advice in confidence.

World Trade Organisation: Cancun

Baroness Rawlings: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will clarify the statement by the Baroness Amos on 13 October (Official Report, col. 697) that the meeting of the Committee on Agriculture did take place and they were present.

Baroness Amos: A special session of the WTO Committee on Agriculture was due to take place between 6 and 10 October, but was in fact cancelled just a few days previously.
	I wrote to the noble Baroness on 17 October 2003 clarifying this point; and copied my letter to those who participated in the debate, and to the Library of the House.
	I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving me the opportunity to put the record straight.

Gypsy and Traveller Women

Lord Avebury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether gypsy and traveller women have access to public health care on an equal footing with the rest of the population; and what is their response to the recommendations in the report Breaking the Barriers—Romani women and access to public health care, published at a Council of Europe conference in Strasbourg on 11 to 12 September.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Access to health services in the UK is based on the principle established at the start of the NHS, of clinical need rather than ability to pay. This continues to be government policy, and the Department of Health will continue to keep this under review to ensure the Government meet the issues raised in the report and avoid disadvantaging any sector of society.

Foreign Office Human Rights Policy Department

Lord Avebury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What are the priorities of the Human Rights Policy Department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for 2004–05; and how this department's budget for that year compares with that for year 2003–04.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Individual departments within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are due to agree specific objectives for the financial year 2004–05 in February 2004. Engaging with multilateral human rights mechanisms, dealing with thematic issues such as torture and the death penalty, raising awareness of the Government's work to promote human rights abroad and mainstreaming democracy and good governance work within the FCO are likely to remain the overall priorities for the Human Rights Policy Department.
	We do not expect there to be any significant change in the staffing or administrative budget of the Human Rights Policy Department in the next financial year.
	In the financial year 2003–04 the Human Rights Policy Department is administering the human rights project fund with a total budget of £8.1 million. Across the FCO, approximately £13 million will be spent on human rights-related projects this financial year. From next year, almost all FCO human rights project work will be funded under the Global Opportunities Fund, which was launched by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary in July 2003. The total allocation to this fund in the financial year 2004–05 will be approximately £17.6 million.

European Union: Forthcoming Council Business

Baroness Massey of Darwen: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will list the forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union from November 2003 to May 2004.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union is as follows:
	
		
			 Date Location Event 
			 November   
			 4 Brussels ECOFIN 
			 6 Brussels EU—Russia Summit 
			 6 Brussels Justice & Internal Affairs (Informal Council) 
			 6 Milan Meeting of Ministers for Urban Policies 
			 6–7 Catania European Conference on Employment 
			 14–15 Taormina, Sicily Ministerial Seminar on Mountain issues in the EU 
			 17–18 Brussels General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC) 
			 17–18 Brussels Agriculture & Fisheries Council 
			 18 Milan European Conference on Immigration & Labour Market 
			 21 Rome Informal Ministerial on Consumer Policy 
			 24–25 Brussels ECOFIN 
			 24–25 Brussels Education, Youth & Culture Council 
			 27–28 Venice Euromed Agriculture 
			 27–28 Padua Informal Ministerial Meeting on Housing 
			 27–28 Brussels Justice & Internal Affairs (Informal Council) 
			 28–29 Naples Foreign Ministers Conclave on IGC 
			 28 Brussels EU & Western Balkans JHA 
			   
			 December 
			 1–2 Rome Euromed Meeting 
			 1–2 Brussels Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council 
			 1–3 Rome Informal Public Administration Ministerial 
			 2–3 Naples EuroMed Foreign Affairs 
			 4–5 Brussels Transport, Telecom & Energy Council 
			 5–7 Rome Closing Conference for the European Year of the Disabled 
			 8–9 Brussels General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC) 
			 9 Brussels EU and Western Balkans Foreign Ministers meeting 
			 12–13 Brussels EUROPEAN COUNCIL 
			 15–17 Brussels Agriculture & Fisheries Council 
			 16 Brussels ECOFIN 
			 22 Brussels Environment Council 
			
			 January   
			 8 Brussels Agriculture & Fisheries Council 
			 16–17 Brussels Employment & Social Policy (Ministerial Informal) 
			 16–17 Galway Informal Employment and Social Policy 
			 19 Brussels Eurogroup 
			 20 Brussels ECOFIN 
			 22–23 Dublin Justice & Home Affairs (Ministerial Informal) 
			 26–27 Brussels General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC) 
			   
			 February  
			 10 Brussels ECOFIN 
			 19 Brussels Justice & Home Affairs (Ministerial Informal) 
			 23–24 Brussels General Affairs & External Relations (GAERC) 
			 23–24 Brussels Justice & Home Affairs (Ministerial Informal) 
			 25–26 Porlaoise Meeting of Regional Policy Ministers 
			 26 Brussels Education, Youth & Culture Council 
			
			 March  
			 2 Brussels Environment Council 
			 4–5 Brussels Employment, Social Policy, Health & Consumer Affairs (Ministerial Informal) 
			 8–9 Brussels Transport, Telecom & Energy Council 
			 9 Brussels ECOFIN 
			 11 Brussels Competitiveness Council 
			 22–23 Brussels General Affairs & External Relations (GAERC) 
			 22–23 Brussels Agriculture & Fisheries Council 
			 25–26 Brussels EUROPEAN COUNCIL 
			 25–26 Dublin Informal on Humanitarian Aid 
			 31 Brussels Justice & Home Affairs (Ministerial Informal) 
			
			 April   
			 2–4 Punchestown ECOFIN 
			 16–17 Tullamore GYMNICH 
			 18–19 Unconfirmed ASEM Foreign Ministers Meeting 
			 23–24 Brussels Economic & Financial Affairs (Informal) 
			 26–27 Brussels General Affairs & External Relations (GAERC) 
			 26–27 Brussels Agriculture & Fisheries Council 
			 29–30 Brussels Justice & Home Affairs (Ministerial Informal) 
			
			 May   
			 6–7 Dublin EuroMed Foreign Ministers 
			 9–11 Killarney Informal Agriculture 
			 11 Brussels ECOFIN 
			 14–16 Waterford Informal Environment 
			 17–18 Brussels General Affairs & External Relations (GAERC) 
			 19–20 Offaly Informal Budget Committee 
			 23–25 Brussels Agriculture & Fisheries Council 
			 27–28 Brussels Education, Youth & Culture Council

Zimbabwean Asylum Seekers

Lord Avebury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why unsuccessful asylum seekers who are not returned to Zimbabwe are not given discretionary leave to enter the United Kingdom pending substantial political change in Zimbabwe; and
	Whether their policy of putting unsuccessful Zimbabwean asylum seekers into an indeterminate immigration status with no right to support or accommodation is satisfactory; and
	What is their estimate of the number of failed Zimbabwean asylum seekers who are without any means of support or accommodation, at the latest convenient date.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Unsuccessful asylum seekers are granted a period of discretionary leave only if they meet the strict criteria set out in the published asylum policy instruction. The fact that we do not choose to pursue removal action against an unsuccessful asylum seeker is not sufficient to justify the grant of discretionary leave.
	Although we are not at present enforcing the return of unsuccessful asylum seekers to Zimbabwe, we are encouraging voluntary returns. These people are eligible to apply for voluntary return through the Voluntary Assisted Return and Reintegration Programme (VARRP).
	We cannot say how many Zimbabwean nationals who have been refused asylum are without support in the United Kingdom.
	Where an individual is unable to leave immediately due to circumstances beyond their control they may be eligible for the provision of accommodation through provisions in Section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (as amended).

Zimbabwean Asylum Seekers

Baroness Park of Monmouth: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many Zimbabwe asylum seekers have returned to Zimbabwe under the voluntary assisted returns programme since it was set up.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Information on the nationality and destination of asylum seekers who leave the UK under the voluntary assisted returns programme is not available.
	The Voluntary Assisted Return and Reintegration Programme (VARRP) is available to all nationalities, including Zimbabweans, throughout the asylum process including those who have received a negative decision on their asylum claim and are awaiting appeal. It is also open to those who have been granted time-limited leave to enter or remain.

SchlumbergerSema

The Countess of Mar: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What services SchlumbergerSema provides for the Home Office, the Metropolitan Police, the Immigration and Nationality Directorate and the Prison Service.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: SchlumbergerSema provides an occupational health service to the Home Office and the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. It also provides some of the outsourced information and communications systems to the Metropolitan Police. The Prison Service has considered the occupational health services provided by a number of companies including SchlumbergerSema.

Asylum Legislation

Earl Russell: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, before introducing any further legislation on asylum, they will consult the Attorney-General on its likely potential cost to the Government's litigation budget.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has made it clear that we seek to tackle two remaining problems in the asylum system: applicants who lodge groundless appeals to delay removal and the problem of asylum seekers who deliberately destroy or dispose of their documents to make unfounded claims. On 27 October, my honourable friend the Minister of State for Citizenship, Immigration and Counter-Terrorism announced specific new legislative proposals for asylum reform, including measures to tackle these two problems. We believe that these reforms should be in place as a matter of urgency and will introduce legislation to enact the measures as soon as parliamentary time allows. We consult the Attorney-General and other Ministers as necessary on all aspects of any future legislation including cost implications.

Extension of Leave to Remain: Costs

Lord Avebury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, in deciding the fees to be charged for applications for extensions of leave to remain by temporary residents in the United Kingdom they received representations regarding the level of these fees compared with those levied for initial visas.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The fees are set under Treasury rules to recover the full administrative cost entailed in considering applications and no more. This is calculated by taking the overall costs of processing applications divided by the number of decisions we expect to make.
	A number of letters have been received from members of the public, bodies representing students and Members of Parliament with regard to the introduction of charging.
	My honourable friend the Minister of State for Citizenship, Immigration and Counter-Terrorism has replied to a number of these representations and officials at the Home Office continue to do so.

Extension of Leave to Remain: Costs

Lord Avebury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, in deciding the fees to be charged for applications for extensions of leave to remain by temporary residents in the United Kingdom:
	(a) they calculated that the interval between the announcement of the new system of charges and the date when those charges came into effect was adequate to disseminate the information to those who needed to know; and
	(b) they were satisfied that the Immigration and Nationality Directorate will be be to provide a level of service to international students commensurate with the charges now being made.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The concept of charging has been in the public domain for some time since it was debated during the passage of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary further stated his intention to charge in the White Paper Secure Borders, Safe Haven: Integration with Diversity in Modern Britain published on 7 February 2002, and signalled that it was necessary and appropriate that applicants themselves paid for this service. The regulations were laid on 10 July and charging was introduced on 1 August.
	Although the intention to introduce charging had been signalled in the White Paper, we accept that the implementation date gave little time before the start of the academic year. Our main concern now is to ensure that all international students and their advisers have the information they need about the new arrangements and services available. Home Office officials are working closely with the Department for Education and Skills (DfES), the British Council and UKCOSA to ensure that this information is disseminated as widely and quickly as possible.
	Charging is vital to ensure we can continue providing the service many students and higher education establishments have come to enjoy recently, particularly under the batch scheme. We have already invested heavily to ensure that the improved service standards we have published are achievable and sustainable. The implementation of charges is necessary to enable the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) to bring its performance up to the best international standards.

Criminal Records Bureau

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many staff are employed by the Criminal Records Bureau in the United Kingdom; whether the bureau uses other agencies in the United Kingdom; and how many people are employed overseas on the bureau's work.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The number of staff employed by the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) in the United Kingdom is 923, comprising staff employed by the agency, Capita and sub-contractors. The bureau does not use any other agencies in the United Kingdom. Data processing work relating to CRB applications has been outsourced by Capita and is undertaken on the Indian sub-continent. I am unable to provide accurate details of the total number of people employed by the sub-contractor, the British company Hays plc. The precise number employed fluctuates significantly, according to the amount of processing work that is contracted out.

Correctional Services Review

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether a copy of the correctional services review, conducted by Mr Patrick Carter for the Cabinet Office Strategy Unit, will be placed in the House.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Patrick Carter has not yet delivered his final report which will provide private advice on correctional services to the Prime Minister, Home Secretary and Chief Secretary. When they have received the report and considered it, Ministers will decide on any publication arrangements.

Sentence Planning

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What plans they have for involving spouses and partners of prisoners in sentence planning.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: There are no plans to require Prison Service establishments in England and Wales to routinely involve spouses, partners, or other family members in sentence planning for offenders over the age of 18. A few establishments do involve families. This is good practice, though not a mandatory requirement.
	In respect of offenders under the age of 18, and all those sentenced to the detention and training order, there is a mandatory requirement that governors must ensure that, where appropriate, families are given the opportunity to contribute to the sentence planning process throughout the custodial part of the sentence.
	The Northern Ireland Prison Service is currently examining ways of allowing prisoners' spouses and partners to participate in resettlement planning.
	Information relating to Scotland is a matter for the Scottish Executive.

Prisons: Visitors' Centres

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will make the resettlement sections of prisons responsible for the administration of existing visitors' centres.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: In England and Wales it remains a matter for each governor to determine the management structure of their establishment and the location of responsibility for the visitors' centre. However, a recent strategic resettlement review in Northern Ireland concluded that it would be beneficial to have all resettlement and family services with the same functional responsibility.
	Information relating to Scotland is a matter for the Scottish Executive.

Defence Systems and Equipment International Exhibition

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they intend to take legal action against companies which exhibited arms and ammunition at the Defence Systems and Equipment International Exhibition without first obtaining the required licences; and if not, why not.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I understand from the Metropolitan Police that no participants were allowed to exhibit without the necessary registration and authority. Nine exhibitors arrived without the necessary documentation to possess firearms. Arrangements were made for this to be rectified before they were allowed to exhibit. In the meantime the firearms were stored in a secure armory.

Defence Systems and Equipment International Exhibition

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether it is their normal practice to recover from the organisers the cost of policing events on private premises to which the public do not have free access; and whether they intend to recover the cost of policing the Defence Systems and Equipment International Exhibition from Spearhead Exhibitions Ltd.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Section 25 of the Police Act 1996 enables chief officers of police to provide special police services upon request and in return for payment at a rate set by the police authority.
	I understand from the Commissioner that the majority of the costs to the Metropolitan Police associated with this exhibition arose from policing demonstrations that occurred outside the exhibition. Maintaining public order in such circumstances is a normal part of police business.

Terrorism Act 2000: Section 44

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether since 13 August authorisation of stop and search under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 for the whole of Greater London has resulted in the arrest or charging of any suspected terrorists; and if so, how many.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The data collected on stops and searches made under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 is not automatically cross-referenced with the data held on arrests or on those charged. This information could only be collated and verified at disproportionate cost.

Terrorism Act 2000: Section 44

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether authorisations under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 are now in force outside London; and whether the level of threat is sufficiently high to justify extending the authorisation for Greater London beyond November 2003.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Many forces run short-term localised operations for a variety of situations that are supported by Section 44 powers. Such operations can include protective security arrangements for events or VIPs, intelligence gathering operations or measures taken in response to intelligence and threat assessments.
	To disclose detailed information on the times and locations of such operations could compromise their future effectiveness and provide information that could prove valuable to terrorists.
	The threat from terrorist attack in the UK remains real, and it is important that the Government provide the necessary assistance to the law enforcement agencies to meet this threat. Section 44 powers play an important part in this process.
	However, it is important to note that each police authorisation of the Section 44 stop-and-search powers is subject to a high level of scrutiny and screening throughout the whole process. This involves the National Joint Unit at the Metropolitan Police and officials at the Home Office before being authorised by the Minister him or her self. This scrutiny revolves around a careful assessment of the threat balanced against the assessment of the risk of any designated or whole force area.

Entry to United Kingdom: False Documents

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many persons have been convicted of entering or attempting to enter the United Kingdom using false or forged documents in the past five years; how many such persons have subsequently been granted refugee status or exceptional leave to remain; and how many cases for financial compensation are pending.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The information requested is not available.

Gibraltar: European Parliamentary Election

Lord Kilclooney: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the electors of Gibraltar will have the right to vote at the next election of the European Parliament in 2004.

Lord Filkin: Yes. Part 2 of the European Parliament (Representation) Act, which obtained Royal Assent in May 2003, sets out provisions to enable the people of Gibraltar to vote in the next European parliamentary elections.

Pension Protection Fund

Lord Taylor of Warwick: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What protection employees will have against losing pension savings due to employers' insolvency in the period prior to the pension protection fund being launched in 2005.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Andrew Smith announced on 11 June that the Government will introduce a pension protection fund which will increase protection for employees who lose their pension savings due to employers' insolvency. The PPF will ensure that scheme members whose companies become insolvent after implementation can still count on receiving a substantial proportion of their pension and therefore have the secure retirement they were expecting.
	The Government are also committed to amending the priority order so that when pension schemes are wound up in future, those members who have been in the scheme the longest, but have not yet retired, are more likely to receive the pension they were expecting. Draft regulations were published on 22 October 2003, which opened a six-week consultation period, ending on 3 December 2003.
	However, it is the general principle of good legislation that it does not apply until it comes into force. Promising compensation for members whose companies go bust before the introduction of the protection measures would mean taking on unknown—and potentially very large—liabilities. With the prospect of guaranteed compensation, some employers might seek to abandon their pension liabilities, potentially further increasing the cost. This would be a potentially very large burden to place on the general taxpayer or any alternative source of funding.
	Member protection is a government priority, and so these new protection measures will be introduced as soon as possible after the relevant legislation is in place.

Tax Credits: Overpayment

Lord Taylor of Warwick: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How the Inland Revenue intends to claw back money it overpaid under the child tax credit scheme.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Inland Revenue encourages people to report changes in their circumstances or income during the year, so that their awards can be adjusted and the right amount of tax credit paid over the year.
	When awards are adjusted, it may mean that tax credit payments are reduced because too much has been paid out already or that no further payments are made because the full amount of tax credits believed to be due has been paid out. To make sure that payments are not reduced to a level that would cause hardship, however, the Inland Revenue makes additional payments if that would be the case.
	Overpayments identified when awards are finalised at the end of the year will, where possible, be recovered by reducing the following year's tax credit award. If there is no continuing tax credit award, the Inland Revenue may ask for direct payment or the amount owed can be recovered by adjusting a PAYE code.
	The Inland Revenue will be publishing a code of practice on what happens when too much tax credit is paid. The code will also cover the circumstances in which the Inland Revenue will not seek to recover a debt, for example, in cases of hardship.

Licensing Act 2003: Regulations

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will include reference to the need to act proportionately in accordance with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 when regulating entertainment under the Licensing Act 2003 and giving guidance under Section 182 of that Act; and
	What they consider to be the obligations of local authorities in acting compatibly with the rights of live musicians under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights when regulating entertainment under the Licensing Act 2003.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Government will not regulate entertainment under the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003. Regulation of the use of premises for the provision of regulated entertainment under the Act is a function of the licensing authorities. The guidance which the Secretary of State will issue to licensing authorities under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 and which those authorities must have regard to in discharging their functions under the Act will make clear that conditions attached to all premises licences, including those licences which permit regulated entertainment, must be necessary for the promotion of the licensing objectives and must represent a proportionate reaction to the level of risk which the proposed activities give rise to. The guidance will further make clear that the licensing conditions should be tailored to the characteristics and activities taking place at the premises concerned. It will stress the importance that the conditions are proportionate and that they recognise any significant differences between venues. No specific reference to the convention or the Human Rights Act 1998 is considered necessary.
	Local authorities acting as licensing authorities must act compatibly with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights when discharging their functions under the Licensing Act 2003 by virtue of their duties under Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. In carrying out their functions under the 2003 Act, the licensing authorities are not concerned with the licensing of individual expression, but are concerned with licensing the premises for the carrying on of the provision of regulated entertainment, such as the performance of live music. Accordingly, their actions in, for instance, attaching conditions to premises licences must be restricted to those which are necessary to promote the licensing objectives and should, therefore, be a proportionate response to the level of risk which the proposed activities give rise to, in this case the provision of regulated entertainment on premises.

Mixed-sex Clubs

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether women in mixed-sex clubs that discriminate on grounds of sex have weaker or fewer voting rights as a result of the repeal of Schedule 7 to the Licensing Act 1964.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is the Government's view that this repeal will not weaken the position for women in mixed-sex clubs but will, to a small degree, improve it.
	Sex discrimination is not currently unlawful in relation to the membership of clubs. In determining whether a club may be registered for the purposes of the 1964 Act, the magistrates, in cases where a club does not conform to the provisions in Schedule 7 to that Act, have a discretion to consider whether it is established and conducted in good faith. As a consequence, Schedule 7 gives no absolute protection with regard to the mandatory application of its provisions.
	There is only one area where magistrates must apply the provisions of Schedule 7 to the 1964 Act and have no discretion, and that is in the area of elective committees. However, even here the provisions in Schedule 7 provide a derogation. Although Schedule 7 applies certain voting requirements for elective committees to the effect that all members entitled to use the club must be entitled to vote for the committee, there is an important exception to this. Where the club is primarily a men's club, women may be excluded from voting, and where the club is primarily a women's club, men may be excluded from voting. This obviously undermines the effect of Schedule 7 in reducing sex discrimination under the 1964 Act. The Licensing Act 2003 will remove this anomaly in the mandatory area.
	The Government believe that the 2003 Act improves the current position as it provides that where a club supplies alcohol, the committee which purchases the alcohol must be elected by the members of the club. The effect of this formulation is that all members of the club, of any class of membership, must vote for the committee. For these purposes the reference to "member" would not include "associate members" as defined in Section 67 of the 2003 Act, who are members of another recognised club or a guest of such a person for the purposes of the 2003 Act. Unlike Schedule 7 to the 1964 Act, this provision does not have any derogations and can therefore be seen as a strengthening of the voting rights within club membership from the standpoint of the prevention of sex discrimination.
	The Government therefore believe that the Licensing Act 2003 slightly improves on the current situation in licensing law, and will not weaken any existing protections.

Public Expenditure: English Regions

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they plan any further revisions to the tables of public expenditure in the English regions in chapter 8 of Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2003 (Cm 5901).

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The tables of public expenditure in the English regions in chapter 8 of Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses (PESA) 2003 were revised in a corrigendum that was published on 10 June 2003. This is available on the Treasury's public website at http://www.hm–treasury.gov.uk/documents/ public–spending–and–services/public–spending–data/pss– pss–pesa03to04.cfm.
	The Treasury does not plan to make any further revisions to these tables before the results of the next annual exercise to provide these analyses are published in PESA 2004.

Television Licence Fees

Baroness Turner of Camden: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will announce the television licence fees that will come into force next year.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The television licence fee settlement announced by the Government in February 2000 provides for changes in the licence fee of RPI plus 1.5 per cent for each year from 2000–01 to 2006–07. This settlement is designed to enable the BBC to provide a strong and distinctive schedule of high quality programmes and remain at the forefront of broadcasting technology. The settlement includes a requirement for the corporation to raise around £1.1 billion through efficiency savings and increased income over the same period.
	Application of the RPI figure of 2.8 per cent for the year to September 2003, plus 1.5 per cent, to the current unrounded licence fees produces new rounded totals of £121 for a colour licence and £40.50 for a black and white licence. The necessary regulations to bring these fees into force will be laid before the House in due course. The changes will come into effect from 1 April next year.

Farm Incomes: Milk

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will provide a table showing the average amount paid to a farmer per litre of milk, in the most recent year for which figures are available, in each of the countries to which the common agricultural policy applies.

Lord Whitty: The table below gives the most recent data available from Eurostat on the average farmgate price of milk of 3.7 per cent fat content in euros per 100 kg for the EU 15.
	The data show that UK farmgate prices are consistently below the EU average. The reasons for this were examined by KPMG in their report on Prices and Profitability in the British Dairy Chain, which was commissioned by the Milk Development Council. The report concluded that the lower prices were the result of the structure of the UK dairy sector, the comparatively low value of the mix of dairy products in the UK and a low level of innovation. It also suggested a number of areas where the efficiency of the dairy supply chain could be improved.
	
		Selling price of raw cows milk, 3.7 per cent fat content: EU 15 (Euros per kg)
		
			  1998 1999 2000 2001 2002(1) 
			 Belgium 27.47 26.33 27.44 29.93 26.37 
			 Denmark 30.80 30.26 30.86 32.34 — 
			 Germany 29.52 28.47 30.00 32.82 29.98 
			 Greece 32.72 33.69 33.47 35.62 34.55 
			 Spain 27.99 27.33 27.05 30.33 28.12 
			 France 28.52 28.11 28.81 29.99 29.26 
			 Ireland 27.92 26.66 27.20 28.56 — 
			 Italy 34.84 34.23 — — — 
			 Luxembourg 31.45 30.65 30.53 32.73 31.89 
			 Netherlands 30.59 28.62 29.15 31.27 29.65 
			 Austria 27.64 27.76 27.83 31.76 30.14 
			 Portugal 28.39 28.49 28.97 32.17 32.87 
			 Finland 32.05 32.15 32.72 33.97 34.36 
			 Sweden 32.71 33.11 34.74 31.22 — 
			 United Kingdom 26.76 26.13 26.09 25.57 — 
		
	
	Source: Eurostat Cronos Database.
	(1)Eurostat data for 2002 is not yet complete.

Rural Delivery Report

Lord Graham of Edmonton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they will publish Lord Haskins' report on rural delivery.

Lord Whitty: We are very pleased to welcome today the publication of Lord Haskins' report on rural delivery, copies of which are in the Libraries of both Houses. We would like to take this opportunity to thank Lord Haskins and his team for all their work. The report is compelling in its analysis of the rural delivery landscape as confusing for customers and too bureaucratic and centralised to meet our future challenges. This echoes the concerns which led us to commission his report. While we have already begun to address these concerns, this report helps us take our work forward.
	Shortly we will also be publishing a review—three years on—of the rural White Paper alongside a study of economic performance in rural areas from Birkbeck College. In the new year, drawing on the three reports, we expect to publish a refreshed rural strategy.
	I attach a copy of Lord Haskins' recommendations, but will single out for comment a few key issues. Next steps
	My first priority is an immediate full review of rural funding schemes to provide a clearer and simpler framework for applicants and to achieve a reduction in bureaucratic procedures.
	In the principles he published in the summer Lord Haskins called for a clearer division of responsibility between policy making and delivery. Government's clear role is to set the framework for policy. But is clear that policy advice can be particularly valuable when it comes from those involved in delivery. We attach huge importance to independent advice from my department's agencies and partners. We do not intend to lose that advice. An Integrated Agency
	A major challenge in the 21st century is the effective stewardship of land in England against the need to conserve and improve the natural environment, maintaining and enhancing biodiversity. Lord Haskins recommends bringing together elements of the work done by English Nature, the Countryside Agency and the Rural Development Service where those functions will most enable the agency to reflect its new remit. We accept that broad recommendation. We will also consider how to achieve alignment of the Forestry Commission with the integrated agency.
	The integrated agency will build on the successes and expertise of its constituent parts, such as English Nature's worldwide reputation on biodiversity matters. It will create a single, stronger authoritative body, accelerating integration of work on biodiversity, natural resource protection and landscape issues in order to improve the environment across rural, urban, marine and coastal England. It will provide independent policy advice and implement policy within the framework of the Government's approach to sustainable development. We will look for a legislative opportunity as soon as possible to formalise arrangements for the agency. I am pleased the constituent bodies have agreed to work with Defra to make practical progress before that point. This will allow continuity for the organisations, their staff and stakeholders, while preparing for the future. Countryside Agency
	Lord Haskins recommended the abolition of the Countryside Agency. We do not, however, agree that there will be no role for it. There will be a continued need for a much smaller organisation, with a new, well focused role providing independent policy advice to government from a national perspective on issues affecting people in rural communities, and analysing and reporting on best practice in the delivery of the Government's rural policies. We also need to build on experience so far on rural proofing and embedding rural objectives in all relevant aspects of government policy. Regional and local delivery
	Lord Haskins recommends devolution of the way in which the Defra family delivers its policies to achieve greater effectiveness and accountability at regional and local level. My department will therefore be discussing with the regional development agencies, the government offices for the regions, local government, the Rural Affairs Forum and the voluntary sector how to define new mechanisms for delivering services to rural communities, which will be accompanied by strong and effective performance management arrangements.
	Much work will be required to develop these proposals into a practical implementation plan, which we hope to publish in the spring. We want to work in partnership on this with all those concerned to secure real improvements in sustainable development from biodiversity to resource protection. This is not only in the interests of Britain's rural communities, but in the interests of us all. Lord Haskins' Recommendations
	To improve accountability through a clearer separation of responsibility for policy and delivery functions (see Chapter 4).
	(1) Defra should review and clarify its rural policy remit in order to ensure that it is consistently understood by all concerned, including those who deliver its policies.
	(2) Defra's prime responsibility should be the development of policy, and it should arrange for the delivery of its policies through national, regional and local agencies. Policy and delivery functions should be managed separately so that accountability for policy and delivery is clearly defined.
	(3) The separation of policy and delivery functions will require Defra to consult delivery organisations at the earliest stages in policy formulation and to require the latter to put forward proposals for the effective delivery of policy. In this way the delivery organisations will be more accountable for effective management of programmes, and there should be less duplication of existing regional and local schemes. Defra will continue to appoint members of the various boards and to hold them accountable for their performance.
	(4) Defra policy officials should develop a good understanding of delivery issues through a programme of training and secondments to delivery organisations. An understanding of delivery issues must be given higher priority in the assessment of individual performance. Secondments and recruitment from delivery organisations should also be encouraged in order to improve mutual understanding.
	(5) Deliverers should agree targets with Defra, working with the Treasury, rather than having unrealistic ones imposed on them by Whitehall. This would include Defra's rural PSA. In this way delivery organisations will accept greater ownership of these targets, which will be more achievable and less vulnerable to manipulation. There should be greater emphasis on setting rural targets that are linked to outcomes (such as an increase in species numbers) rather than outputs (such as the number of grants processed).
	(6) Delivery organisations should have the maximum flexibility to allocate resources in the most effective ways, whilst keeping the necessary discipline over administrative costs.
	(7) Defra should agree shared targets with other government departments and their delivery organisations as an essential means of securing better delivery of its rural policy objectives. This will strengthen Defra's ability to influence outcomes.
	(8) Defra should improve the quality of its management information so that it can take better informed decisions and control the administrative costs associated with the schemes and services that it funds.
	(9) In pursuit of the objectives of separating policy from delivery and of devolving delivery, the functions of the Countryside Agency should be transferred to the appropriate specialist organisations. Thus:
	policy development (including the commissioning of pilots and demonstration projects), together with the promotion of rural proofing would pass to Defra and the government offices;
	social and economic programmes would pass to regional and local networks of regional development agencies (RDAs), local authorities and the voluntary and community sector;
	environmental, landscape, access and recreational programmes would pass to the new, integrated agency proposed below (see Recommendation 16);
	review of rural proofing, challenge and external advice would pass to a reformed Rural Affairs Forum for England (see below).
	In the light of these changes the Countryside Agency would cease to be required as a separate organisation.
	To bring delivery closer to the customer by devolving greater power to regional and local organisations to deliver economic and social policy (see Chapter 5).
	(10) RDAs should play a key role in the devolved delivery of Defra's rural economic and social agenda. They must therefore demonstrate and develop their capacity to contribute to sustainable development in addressing rural needs.
	(11) A concordat with Defra should be established as a first step towards making the RDAs accountable for their part in achieving Defra's policy objectives on rural sustainable development.
	(12) The successors to the existing business and farm diversification schemes (the so-called "project-based schemes") that are administered by Defra's Rural Development Service under the England Rural Development Programme should become the responsibility of regional development agencies, which will arrange for their delivery.
	(13) Regional development agencies should have the lead responsibility in co-ordinating public sector rural business support and advice. To that end they should take direct responsibility for Business Links. They should take steps to improve the quality and consistency of business support and advisory services.
	(14) Local authorities and local partnerships should assume the main responsibility for delivery of schemes and services to rural communities. They should be fully consulted by Defra and the RDAs about any changes to policy and delivery arrangements and should be given the necessary flexibility to address local needs. The potential of rural community councils as partners in community-based delivery is underestimated and should be enhanced.
	(15) As part of the next round of local public service agreements, Defra, working with other government departments and the Local Government Association, should agree joint Whitehall targets for the delivery of rural policies by local authorities.
	To develop a more integrated approach to sustainable land management by rationalising agencies with overlapping agendas (see Chapter 6).
	(16) The Government should establish an integrated agency to promote sustainable use of land and the natural environment. This is necessary in order to prepare for the expanding land management agenda and to improve co-ordination and service delivery to customers. This would be achieved through a merger of English Nature, Defra's Rural Development Service and some functions of the Countryside Agency. Its remit should embrace biodiversity, historical landscape, natural landscape, natural resources, access and recreation.
	(17) Defra should establish close collaboration between the Environment Agency and the new, integrated agency so that their activities complement each other.
	(18) Consistent with the principle of clear separation of policy from delivery functions, the policy development role of the Forestry Commission in England should be transferred to Defra.
	(19) Following the creation of the new integrated agency, it is logical to integrate or closely align the delivery functions (regulation, incentives, advice) of the Forestry Commission with those of the new agency.
	(20) We would also expect Defra to seek opportunities to rationalise the various levy-funded organisations that it sponsors in respect of certain agricultural sectors for marketing, developmental and other purposes. There is scope to share resources (administrative, economic and research) between the various boards and to strengthen support for industry programmes if savings are realised through rationalisation.
	To improve the co-ordination of delivery by enhancing the role of government offices for the regions as co-ordinators and monitors (see Chapter 7).
	(21) The government offices for the regions should be given a stronger remit to promote co-ordination of and to monitor rural delivery and to promote rural proofing on behalf of Defra. Regional rural priority boards, chaired by government offices and including key regional and local bodies responsible for rural regeneration and service delivery, should be set up to provide strategic co-ordination and monitoring.
	(22) Delivery agencies should strengthen joint working through the development of joint regional delivery plans. These would include designated lead delivery partners, agreed joint targets, shared resources and clear accountability for delivery.
	(23) Defra should consult earlier and more closely with the GOs to ensure more co-ordinated policy development and strategic planning at the national level and reduce the number of strategies that are handed down to the regions.
	(24) The government offices should focus on their role as co-ordinators and monitors of programmes affecting rural areas and not to be involved in direct delivery. They should disengage from their current role in the administration of EU structural funds if and when these are replaced by a national programme of regional regeneration, as the government have proposed.
	(25) Regional rural affairs forums (RRAFs), comprising representatives of rural customers and beneficiaries, should become the forums in which national and regional delivery of rural policies is reviewed and reported on. Their key duties would be:
	to highlight important issues and priorities for rural development and service delivery;
	to comment on the effectiveness of rural development and service delivery in their region and identify areas for improvement;
	to comment on the impact and effectiveness of existing policy developments and rural proofing initiatives and to generate new ideas;
	to provide leadership to help drive rural development at regional and local level.
	The RRAFs would receive secretariat services from the proposed rural priorities board secretariat.
	To make things better for the customer and get greater value for money for the taxpayer through a more integrated approach to regulation and through simpler services (see Chapter 8).
	(26) The government offices for the regions should work with regional and local organisations to develop a more co-ordinated approach to front-line delivery. This should include spreading best practice between regions on integrated delivery and facilitation, recognising what is practical and affordable.
	(27) Defra, as the lead body, should accelerate the development of a whole farm approach that will ensure better co-ordination of government regulation and compliance, subsidy, advice and financial incentives linked to farm businesses. This would require:
	the development of an integrated rural database linked to land-based business (to which the Environment Agency would have access, subject to resolution to data privacy constraints);
	Risk-based self-assessment backed up by audit, preferably using such independent bodies as FWAG and LEAF;
	encouraging more rapid uptake of Internet use by farmers and rural businesses in general;
	the creation of a farm advisory service in the light of the recent settlement on CAP-reform; this would logically fall under the control of the new integrated agency.
	(28) In view of the expanding agri-environmental protection agenda, the Environment Agency should agree with local authorities a supplementary role on regulation and compliance. Local authorities should agree standards for delivery with the agency and call in its support where the extent of a problem or the risks connected with it are beyond the authorities' capacity to manage.
	Local authorities should take the lead role in co-ordinating general regulation and compliance advice on farm premises.
	(29) Defra should rationalise its inspection functions, integrating them wherever possible with existing regulatory authorities to achieve administrative savings and avoid duplication of skills.
	(30) Defra should review all rural funding streams and schemes to achieve a more rational, transparent and comprehensible approach to the administration of financial incentives and to ensure that all new initiatives are consistent with Defra's delivery strategy, add real value and do not duplicate.
	(31) Defra should review and simplify the current procedural rules connected with grants to rural businesses and communities in order to provide greater discretion in the execution and targeting of grants in a user-friendly way, consistent with state aid rules.
	Reporting on progress
	Defra should publish progress reports on the implementation of my recommendations in the spring or summer of 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007.

Railways: First Aid Provision

Lord Greaves: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What are the requirements for the provision for first aid equipment, the presence of trained first aid staff, and a nominated member of staff as the lead "first aider" on (a) inter-city trains and stations, and (b) other trains and stations in the United Kingdom.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The Health and Safety (First-Aid) Regulations 1981 require employers to provide adequate and appropriate equipment and facilities to enable first aid to be given to their employees if they are injured or taken ill at work. Employers are required to assess whether first aid facilities are appropriate to the circumstances of the workplace. As a minimum, employers are required to provide a suitably stocked first aid box and appoint a competent person to take charge of first aid arrangements.
	There are no legal requirements for railway operators to make first aid provision and facilities available for non-employees. However, most railway operators do generally make first aid provision for passengers on trains and at major stations.

Signals Passed at Danger: Monthly Reports

Lord Berkeley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the cost to the Health and Safety Executive and the railway industry in the collection of information, analysis and production of the monthly reports on signals passed at danger.

Lord Davies of Oldham: It takes the Health and Safety Executive approximately 24 staff days per year, at a total annual cost of about £4,000, to collect, analyse and publish on its website (and place in the House Library) its monthly reports on signals passed at danger. These reports also contain data about train protection and warning system interventions and activations.

Signals Passed at Danger: Monthly Reports

Lord Berkeley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many people have been killed or seriously injured in each year since the Health and Safety Executive reports on signals passed at danger were introduced in the year 1997–98.

Lord Davies of Oldham: Details of the number of people killed and seriously injured on Britain's railways are available in the Health and Safety Executive's annual reports on railway safety, copies of which are available from the House Library.

Public Roads: Tolls

Lord Fearn: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many public road bridges still have tolls.

Lord Davies of Oldham: There are 12 public road bridges in England where tolls are charged.

Public Roads: Tolls

Lord Fearn: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many public road tunnels still have tolls.

Lord Davies of Oldham: There are two public road tunnels in England where tolls are charged.

Cruise Liners

Lord Fearn: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Which cruise liners operate under British companies.

Lord Davies of Oldham: 24 cruise liners were operating under the direct ownership of UK companies at the end of June 2003. These are as follows:
	Adonia
	Aidaaura
	Aidavita
	A'Rosa Blu
	Aurora
	Braemar
	Caronia
	Hebridean Princess
	Hebridean Spirit
	Lord of the Glens
	Ocean Village
	Oceana
	Oriana
	Pacific Sky
	Queen Elizabeth 2
	Royal Princess
	Seabourn Legend
	Seabourn Pride
	Seabourn Spirit
	Seven Seas Navigator
	Seven Seas Voyager
	Sunbird
	Superstar Aries
	World Discoverer